Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2007 - 04:51pm PT
|
To look for a fresh gum wad to chew? That's why I do it.
|
|
Ouch!
climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2007 - 04:54pm PT
|
" is it enough to make a judgement on hearsay about his alleged homosexual adventures"
Given the whole of the circumstances and Craig's reactions...
Yep!
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Idaho Falls
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2007 - 05:15pm PT
|
"The cop couldn't have know Craig would sit down next to him. By Craigs own testimony, the cop was already in the stall when Craig entered the bathroom. So you can leave off targeting him for his politics."
I dont believe I stated the cop was targeting him for his politics. I'm asking can WE form a just conclusion if we dislike his personality and politics but have only sprectral evidence to go by. Letting him plead guilty to disorderly conduct lets the arresting officer off the hook. I would like to hear both in court before I make a judgement. Isn't that the idea of a trial?
Now we only have the court of public opinion.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2007 - 05:21pm PT
|
Do you want all cases to go to court, or just this one? You had better build a bigger court house, because most cases are pled out to a lower offense.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Idaho Falls
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2007 - 05:25pm PT
|
If you have a more perfect method of applying justice, I'm listening. If he's guilty of the greater offense then there is no justice in a guilty plea for the lesser. If he's innocent of solicitation, his life is ruined by pleading guilty to the lesser.
Convenience and Justice are sometimes exclusive of one another.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2007 - 05:30pm PT
|
I am not the one asking for more perfection. You are the one insisting that all cases go to court.
What is your solution? How would you provide enough courtrooms, judges, and juries to have ALL cases go to court. Because if you don't want all cases to go to court, then you are revealing prejudice.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Idaho Falls
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2007 - 05:38pm PT
|
"I am not the one asking for more perfection. You are the one insisting that all cases go to court.
Again, thanks for telling me what I'm saying. I'm not insisting on ALL cases going to court. Cases of significant moral portent in which the charge is disputed should go to court or the whole justice system means nothing.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2007 - 05:48pm PT
|
Jennie, all cases are of serious moral imperative to the person being charged. And all cases are disputed. That is what plea deals are all about, the courts getting at least some conviction without every case having to go to trial.
The more evidence, the less of a plea deal someone is going to get. The less evidence, then the bigger plea deal they will get.
Why does this case torque you so much that you insist it go to trial? Why not other cases? Are you aware of how many plea deals happen everyday?
If you don't stand for everyone, then you are being prejudiced.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Idaho Falls
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2007 - 06:02pm PT
|
"Why does this case torque you so much that you insist it go to trial? Why not other cases? Are you aware of how many plea deals happen everyday?
If you don't stand for everyone, then you are being prejudiced."
Are you assuming I have no interest in other cases? This thread is about Larry Craig but we can change that. This case is about serious moral turpitude in a prominent public official. It has great personal portent for the Craigs as well as great political and social implications to the nation. Is it proper to let the arresting officer skate out of the equation and let Fox News and the cracker barrell justices in Hooterville write the history?
Keep trying the "prejudiced" angle, I'm sure you will eventually nail me on that.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2007 - 06:12pm PT
|
How is the police officer skating? Your statement makes it sound like you are assuming that the cop is lying.
Why just political cases? Why not all cases?
Edit: "Is it proper to let the arresting officer skate"
Your use of the word skate makes you sound prejudiced. It is an inflamatory word with implications. If you are not, then I apologize.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Idaho Falls
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2007 - 06:24pm PT
|
I'm not assuming the officer is lying. But if his accusation isn't examined and cross examined how can we make a valid determination. Are you aware that police officers rarely show up to testify in such cases. Most truthful police will agree that plea bargaining serves the pupose of getting them out of testifying in court.
I read one account that of 770 similar cases not one defendant was found guilty. This primarily because of officers refusing to testify. With Craigs plea bargain the officer doesn't even have to refuse.
|
|
Ouch!
climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2007 - 06:30pm PT
|
Craig made the decision to plea bargain. He could have had a trial.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Idaho Falls
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2007 - 06:52pm PT
|
Mr Crowley,
I've seen the video of Craig dissing Clinton several times. Yes, he's a Republican donkey. Does that make him guilty of soliciting sex in a public bathroom? As it stands now we may never have clarity about what happened in the bathroom. I have to admit that many Idaho voters can stomach Craigs braying about Clinton but not the queer bedfellows noise. Of course he's unelectable now.
Am I offending nature by wanting the facts to come out in a honest and structured manner?
Or should I feel content hearing ten thousand people in the stands yelling "he's a corrupt, hipocritical, homo, IDIOT!" and the other side grimacing "He was railroaded!". How do we attentuate the politics and find clarity?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2007 - 02:31am PT
|
Larry's Craig sex life was in the news before his arrest.
Idaho Sen. Larry Craig Denies Allegations of Same-Sex Affairs
By Jill Kuraitis, 10-17-06
Mike Rogers, who calls himself "the nation’s leading gay activist blogger" has just finished a nationally-broadcast interview on the Ed Schultz Radio Show in which he alleges that Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig has engaged in same-sex sexual activity.
Senator Craig’s office flatly rejected the claims. "The Senator says this story is absolutely ridiculous – almost laughable," said press secretary Sid Smith. “It has no basis in fact.”
Rogers said he has talked to three men unknown to each other who all reported in detail their sexual encounters with Craig over the last four years. The men were of legal age, Rogers said. (Audio of Rogers on the Ed Schultz show is available here.)
Rogers says that digging into the private lives of politicians who support anti-gay legislation is legitimate. Because Craig supported and voted for the Defense of Marriage act, it is politically relevant to reveal these claims, Rogers said. In a letter to Craig, he wrote: "What these citizens are not being told is that some of the politicians who want their help are or have staff who are part of the so-called ‘homosexual lifestyle.’"
Rogers reported that he took "trips out west and met with folks in the Senator’s region and in the Pacific Northwest" as part of his research. Rogers said he and his advisors are solid on the sources, but they would remain anonymous. Rogers said he tried to contact the Senator, but never got a response from Craig or his staff.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!